REGULAR ARTICLE

An Invitation to Travel in an Interethnic Arena:Listening Carefully to Amerindian Leaders’ Speeches

Rafaela Waddington Achatz1 &

Danilo Silva Guimarães1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract In this article, we identify usual difficulties faced by Brazilian psychologistswhen dealing with Amerindian Peoples, concerning the systematic violence experiencedby those Peoples, who have been suffering and fighting against a process of genocideand ethnocide. To identify those difficulties, we analysed speeches of Amerindianleaders of the State of São Paulo - Guarani Mbya, Pankararu, Xavante, Baniwa, Tupi -Guarani, Terena, Kaingang and Krenak - which were addressed to psychologists. Thosespeeches were delivered in events promoted by CRP-SP in 2010 and in the 2nd and 3rdForums BThe Amerindian presence in São Paulo^ at the Institute of Psychology (USP),in 2014. From the analysis, we make a distinction between the notions of meeting anddialogical encounter, considering that: 1. not every meeting is an encounter, in thedialogical sense, because the meeting can happen in a way that one of the interlocutors isobjectified by the other and 2. being together and building an affective ground is an apriori for the dialogical encounter to happen. Based on the leaderships` speeches and inthe notions of Amerindian perspectivism and the phenomenology of alterity in CulturalPsychology, we propose alternative paths to understand constitutive aspects of a dia-logical meeting in such interethnic situation. These reflections are proposed as atheoretic-empirical work, as it departs from the comprehension that the theoreticalproblems are not separated from the concrete situation that enables them to emerge.

Keywords Amerindian peoples . Alterity . Interethnic dialogue . Cultural psychology

Integr Psych Behavhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9431-0

We use the notion of ethnicity to refer to a group of people who share and construct together an ethos, i.e.,customs and habits, principles, values, norms of action and ideals. We understand, however, that the notion ofethnicity is extrinsic to the way these Peoples understand each other, even though at the same time it has beenappropriated in indigenous discourses, especially in dialogues and disputes with governmental and non-governmental institutions. For further insights into the limits of the notion of ethnic identity in the Amerindiancontext, see Albert (1997), Gallois (2000), Pantoja et al. (2011) and Viveiros de Castro (2006).

* Rafaela Waddington Achatzrafaela.achatz@usp.br

1 Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

This article discusses the process of interethnic encounter between the psychologist andAmerindian Peoples, its conditions of occurrence and its possible implications. Besidesthe problems that are immanent to the interethnic dialogue, the psychologist andAmerindian People face another great challenge: for more than 500 years, a processof genocide and ethnocide of the Amerindian Peoples has been happening in thecolonized territories, with different histories and meanings for its participants(Carneiro da Cunha 2012; Ribeiro 1996; Todorov 1982). The diverse AmerindianPeoples resist in various ways to the pressure of colonialist and post-colonialistprocesses. With the excuse of the development and growth of the nations systematicmassacres take place, carrying on the ethnocide and genocide of millions of peoples,producing great suffering and leading the Amerindian Peoples to numerous situationsof psychosocial vulnerability. Nowadays, violence against Amerindian Peoples tends tointensify. At the same time, the Amerindian Peoples’ fight for their original territoryand specific rights grows.

In this scenery, what are the possibilities for psychologists to work with AmerindianPeoples, respecting their experience in its singularity and complexity? It is quite a task,considering that Psychology is a complex field of knowledge, historically based uponEurocentric and racist theories that supported the subjugation of other Peoples (Jahoda1999). Besides, one of the motivations of this research came from realizing that even ifthe psychologist has Bgood intentions^, their work with Amerindian Peoples can bevery violent, considering the very common attitude of psychologists in assuming theposition of knowledge and of owner of the right values. Therefore, it is important toacknowledge that our speech departs from and has as its interlocutor a professional andan academic field that is mostly white, still very Eurocentric and that keeps relating toAmerindian Peoples mainly as objects and not as agents of knowledge – keeps relatingto the Amerindian Peoples as if they were part of exotic cultures, there to be explainedby scientific knowledge.

Thus, we faced questions about the ethical, political and aesthetical postures Psy-chology assumes when relating to Amerindian People, seeking to hear the Amerindianvoices that speak about these issues to understand how the encounter between thepsychologist, the indigenous person and the community can be creative and transfor-mative, instead of perpetrating meetings that are violent and silencing. What can we dowhen these failed meetings happen also with those who search (or at least say they do)for encounters (psychologists, supporters in social movements, priests, etc.)? How canthe work between Amerindian People and psychologists be a dialogical encounter andpromote new encounters in the dialogical sense?

How to enjoy the creative potential of the encounter (being aware of its risks),instead of repeating the failed meetings that have been creating so much suffering?Listening to the Amerindian People is important for us to try to find paths throughwhich the dialogical encounter can happen. Therefore, we propose a theoreticaldiscussion that articulates the Amerindian leaderships` speeches, the notion ofdialogism (Bakhtin and Voloshinov 1976), and the notion of Amerindian Perspectivism(Viveiros de Castro 2004) – having as background the Cultural Psychology that recursto the phenomenology of alterity (Simão 2010, 2015; Coelho Junior 2008). Thus,assuming the position of researchers and psychologists, we put ourselves into a field ofinterethnic mediation, from which this article is one of the voices that emerged. Weshare the paths travelled in an exploratory study about the theme-field that concerns the

Integr Psych Behav

relation between Psychology and Amerindian Peoples. Spink (2003) proposes that thetheme of research is situational, it is fabricated in the relationship between theresearcher and what they research. What is researched is not a fixed and a priorireality, but a social product that is continuously built – a field that is constructed bypeople in dialogue. Therefore, the theme of the research is a dwelling field that isproduced upon the process of negotiation between what is being researched and theresearcher.

Meeting the Amerindian Leaders

Not all the meetings are dialogical encounters and not every communication is adialogue. Many of the so-called ‘interethnic meetings are actually irresponsible euphe-misms for failed meetings. The failed meetings happen when one or both parts involvedin dialogue are not recognized as so being and their mystery is not respected, which canbe experienced as a deep violence. Thus, the dialogical encounter requires (at least)three parts: two interlocutors that share but don’t turn into one and an infinite Other thatinhabits both interlocutors and their sharing (cf. Cornejo 2008). Those interlocutorstransform and create, but perseverate as agents that express themselves and alwayspreserve mysterious parts (as well as maintain the relationship with an unknown thirdwhich is known to be there, even if it is not perceived to be there). We propose thenotion of ‘dialogical encounter’ to refer to a process that is not necessarily only verbaland the dialogue doesn’t lead to a synthesis (see Valsiner 1997), but to the multiplica-tion of meanings and paths. Thus, the dialogical encounter implies availability to holdthe tension of not-understanding and not-knowing (not only the person in front of you,but including what is possibly real from the perspective of the other) and, through thistension, be able to share, creating something new (cf. Simão 2010).

For many Amerindian Peoples, the (failed or not) meetings with alterity did not startin 1500, but already had been happening, and still are. It is an Beternal return of themeeting^ (Krenak 2000), a meeting that happens at every moment. Krenak (2000)discusses the different experiences and temporalities that are lived in those interethnicexperiences, telling us about the stories of the contact of ancient peoples of theAmerican territory with white people that were told by those ancient peoples, empha-sizing that they already knew about this announced contact:

In the ancient narratives, there were already prophecies about the arrival of thewhite people. (...) The time of this meeting between our cultures is a time thathappens and is repeated every day. There wasn’t a meeting between the culturesof the Western Peoples and the cultures of the American continent in a demar-cated time that we could call 1500 or 1800. We are living with this contact sincealways. If we think that 500 years ago some canoes landed in our beach, arrivingwith the first travellers, the first colonizers, those same travellers are arrivingtoday to the sources of the high rivers in Amazonia. (p. 47)

The notion of an Beternal return of the meeting^ points that the aperture to alterity iscontinuous – it is constitutive of each person and people. It also points to the non-lineartemporality of the encounter. Moreover, Krenak poses the question: what can be donefrom this (unstoppable) encounter with the other? This question outlines that, when

Integr Psych Behav

facing alterity, one has choices: to subjugate, to violate, to reproduce the violentrelationships, to live together in a respectful way, etc. This kind of discussion has beendensely made by historians (cf. Todorov 1982) concerning different Amerindiancontexts. Nevertheless, Ailton Krenak (2000) elaborates it in his own way inside theBrazilian context:

(…) In all those places that were Spanish, Portuguese or English colonies, ourrelatives always recognized the arrival of white people as the return of a brotherthat had been away for a long time. When he went away, he also withdrewhimself in the sense of humanity that we were constructing. He is a subject thatlearned lots of things far away from home, that forgot where he is from and thathas difficulty to know where he is going to. (p. 47)

Krenak (2000) proposes a narrative quite different from the ones in the didactichistory books traditionally used by Brazilian schools1 – not only for its content but alsobecause here the Amerindian People are agents of their own histories. It becomesevident that listening and placing the different voices that express the AmerindianPeoples’ experiences is fundamental to walk through paths that can contribute to theBfull exercise of the capacity of Peoples to manage their processes of education,promotion of health, economy, alimentation, knowledge, and choices regarding whatthose Peoples intend to construct for the future generations^ (ABRASME 2014). Wetake the notion of voice from Bakhtin (1997), nevertheless, it is important to recognizethe limitations of the term ‘voices’, as it usually designates only the verbal dimension ofexpression, which we consider as embodied and constituted by multiple sensible layers.

Trying to hear what Amerindian leaderships had to say to psychologists, weanalysed the transcriptions of a set of speeches delivered by Guarani Mbya, Pankararu,Xavante, Baniwa, Tupi-Guarani, Terena, Kaingang and Krenak leaders that live in thestate of São Paulo. They spoke in the 2nd and 3rd Forums BThe Amerindian presencein São Paulo^ (organized in 2014 by the Amerindian Support Network, an extensionservice headquartered at the University of São Paulo, Institute of Psychology), and inevents promoted between 2005 and 2009 by Sao Paulo’s Regional Council of Psy-chology. The material analysed consists in 21 speeches of Amerindian leaders pub-lished in CRP’s book Psicologia e povos indígenas (Psychology and indigenouspeoples) and the transcription of 282 min of the speeches filmed in the 2nd and 3rdForums BThe Amerindian presence in São Paulo^.2

Our analysis consisted in an attempt to dialogically construct meanings trough 1)mapping the antinomies in each speech and identifying how the speaker affec-tively relates to this antinomies and 2) we identified the antinomies in generaltopics – role of psychologists, territory, identity, alterity, racism, genocide and ethnocide,

1 Amerindian people in Brazil have been strongly criticizing how they are presented in the history schoolbooks that have an evolutionist approach to history, and present their stereotypes as peoples belonging to thepast. For further insights, see Gandra and Nobre (2014), Lindemeyer (2013) and da Silva (2014).2 II Fórum: A Presença Indígena em São Paulo: Indígenas e o contexto urbano: Lutas, vivências eidentidades (2014, October 09). Video file available at http://iptv.usp.br/portal/struts/video.action?idItem=24382 and III Fórum: A Presença Indígena em São Paulo: Saúde e educação indígena -oralidade, cultura e políticas públicas (2014, November 13). Video file availabe at http://iptv.usp.br/portal/transmission/video.action;jsessionid=D4C4742DC710B796E1EE7128E30FA6AF?idItem=24518

Integr Psych Behav

assimilationism and multiculturalism, external support, State, rights, dignity and publicpolicies, education, fight and resistance, memory, construction of the person, ´spiritual-ity´- due to their prevalence in the speeches. The set of analyzed materials allows todevelop the several topics identified above. The discussion of the results, in turn, wasguided by the objective of the research, which was to problematize and understand howBrazilian psychologists are starting to deal with Amerindian Peoples and the effects ofthis approach. The excerpts presented in this article, therefore, express a very selectivecutout that serves the purposes of scientific dissemination of the main conclusions of theresearch.

All the leaders spoke in Portuguese, although it was not the first language for mostof them. It is important to outline that the Amerindian leaders have an important role ofmediating the relationship between their communities and the Brazilian society. In thissense, they are very skilled in the interethnic transit and in the operations of culturaltranslation, as we will discuss later in this paper. In those Forums, the leaders’interlocutors were mostly psychologists, and the leaders denounce their situation andcall us psychologists to work with them, proposing how this work could be done. Thus,they call our attention to other worlds, other possibilities of a world and to look to ourworld from other points of view.

We need to remember that those leaders belong to very diverse Peoples, each onewith complex cosmologies and histories, what requires a deep ethnic contextualizationof each speech to understand deeply what they may be saying. Thus, we outline thatthis analysis gives a Bpanoramic view^ of very different Amerindian peoples, whichrepresents the way psychologists approached these peoples in these forums. Thespecificity of each Amerindian people and person demands the emergence of finepoints and more subtle understandings. For instance, there was a sharp differencebetween analysing the Guarani Mbya leaders’ speeches and analysing the speechesdelivered by leaders belonging to other Peoples.

While we were doing this research, we were also participating in the AmerindianSupport Network, an academic service that guide the practical work of the studentswith indigenous people from the communities. Therefore, we went every week to theGuarani Mbya communities at the Jaraguá Peak. Being together, sharing not onlystories but also smells, temperatures, rhythms and other dimensions of experiencecreated a completely different dialogical ground from the one we were upon whenanalysing the other peoples’ speeches. Besides, this difference was even bigger whenanalysing Pedro’s and Sonia’s speeches, with whom we spent more time together.Therefore, we outline that the considerations made in this article are guided by ourexperience with the Guarani Mbya communities of the Jaraguá Peak while participatingin the Amerindian Support Network and by our different experience of participating insocial movements that deal with Amerindian issues.

Even if we consider the shortcomings of a panoramic view, the choice of dealingwith speeches from leaders belonging to diverse Amerindian peoples is related to theway the psychologists who organized the events approached them. This kind ofapproach reflects an historical debate between psychology and anthropology aboutthe generality of the psychological conceptions of the human person in opposition tothe singular way that each culture constructs the person. In this sense, the choice ofgiving a panoramic view of different Peoples is consistent with the purposes of thiswork, namely, to problematize and understand how Brazilian psychologists are starting

Integr Psych Behav

to deal with Amerindian Peoples and the effects of this approach. Furthermore, weconsider that some dimensions of the experiences of these interethnic meetings mightbe shared by persons from different Peoples. This paper is a reflection concerning theseshortcomings.

Listening to Amerindian Leaders

The analysis of the speeches began by outlining its extra-verbal situations. Bakhtin andVoloshinov (1976) proposes that the extra-verbal is what is shared by the interlocutors(jointly seen, jointly known, unanimously evaluated – which are socially constructed)and it is presumed in the enunciation, constituting its meaningfulness. Thus, thecomprehension and evaluation of an enunciation is only possible when an extra-verbal situation is shared between the participants in the dialogue. But some questionsemerged through the analysis, as we began to see that our problem was investigatingwhat happens exactly when the extra-verbal situation is not shared, when it is fuzzy,and how a new situation of shared presumed grounds can be built.

If there are distinct extra-verbal grounds in each culture that co-exist with shared andparallel dimensions, how to dialogue when the presumed acts and judgements aredistinct, when the ontologies - or even the personal experience - of the interlocutors aredifferent? In other words, how can we dialogue when we don’t share the samereferents? Instead of emphasizing the role of the intersubjectivity in the constructionof meaning, the problem was to deal with a dialogism without an extra-verbal context(thus, without an a priori intersubjectivity) where the enunciations are built in co-authorship. In the dialogical encounter (not only the interethnic one), there is always agap where the meanings are uncertain. This gap is uncomfortable, disquieting, some-times anguishing and at the same time immensely compelling and creative, as thepossibilities of dialogue, worlds and being multiply. It is from this gap that temporarycommon extra-verbal grounds can be continuously (re)created.

This gap exists because alterity is not reducible to the stable binomial difference-identity, as the Other is constitutive of the encounter and of the person. The contact withalterity implies a dislodgement of myself (Coelho Junior 2008). In other words, whenfacing alterity, becoming another than myself is the condition for the encounter tohappen. As the dislodgement of myself is a condition to encounter the other, it is alsonecessary to sustain a deformation of my own conceptual schema. As ‘comprehending’the other can be just reducing them to my own voice or conceptual schema, we face aproblem of translation. If translating the experience of the other into my own concep-tual schema isn’t a path for the dialogue, how could we do it?

Therefore, it is in this interethnic gap that an important part of the work between thepsychologist and the Amerindian People happens. As the meanings emerge in theencounter with Other - inside and outside oneself – we propose that the task of thepsychologist is not to try to comprehend the other, finding answers, solutions, fixingmeanings. But to dialogue in a way that allows the other to maintain its Otherness(which remains as a mystery), at the same time that it allows to search for the co-construction of temporary shared meanings and paths.

The cultural translation - instead of being the process where one tries to find howdifferent points of view talk about the same transcendent thing - can be a process of

Integr Psych Behav

transduction. When facing the untranslatability of a poem, Faleiros (2014) discusses theprocess of transduction – a process in which the Bexperience^ of the poem happensthrough one’s body, enabling paths of comprehension in which the translated words canbe signified through one’s senses. For the Brazilian anthropologist Eduardo Viveiros deCastro (2004), the transduction is the process in which the difference (and not thesimilarity) between the terms is the condition for its meaningfulness, as a relation canonly exist due to the difference between the terms. Here, the image of what connectsone to another is what they differ, not their sameness. Thus, the transduction createsconnections by producing difference, showing how two discourses do not say the samething (as they don’t share the same referents). Therefore, we take the cultural translationas a continuous Boperation of differentiation—a production of difference—that con-nects the two discourses to the precise extent to which they are not saying the samething, in so far as they point to discordant exteriorities beyond the equivocal homonymsbetween them.^ (p.20) For instance, we translate in order to compare, and not theopposite.

Dealing with the differences between the referents of the speeches, the transductionaims to outline the equivocation that is inherent to the dialogue. Instead of explainingwhat the others say in our own concepts – reducing their voices to ours, Viveiros deCastro (2004) proposes the Bmethod of controlled equivocation^. The Amerindianperspectivism, a theory about translation, proposes that it is through the equivocationthat two perspective positions can communicate: B(…) perspectivism projects an imageof translation as a process of controlled equivocation— Bcontrolled^ in the sense thatwalking may be said to be a controlled way of falling.^ (Viveiros de Castro 2004, p. 3).The communication happens because of the alterity of referents between homonymousconcepts. Thus, the equivocation is at the same time the limit and the possibility ofcomprehension in an interethnic dialogue. The equivocation is a situation in which thenotion of reality itself becomes uncertain. For instance, Berger and Luckman’s classicaldiscussion about the empirical suitability of psychological theories can help us tounderstand the equivocation. They pose that it would be an equivoque to interpretwhat the Haitian live through a psychology that is appropriate for the New York Jewsand vice-versa: BThe two psychologies demonstrate their empirical adequacy by theirapplicability in therapy, but neither thereby demonstrates the ontological status of itscategories.^ (Berger and Luckmann 1967, pp. 198).

The method of controlled equivocation consists in the constant work of readjustingour equivocations when listening to the other (the first step, therefore, is to recognizethat our comprehension of the other will always be somehow equivocated), allowingwhat the others say or do to deform our own conceptual schema. And this has an ethicaldimension: with whom are we engaged in our (limited) comprehension? What are theeffects of our equivocations?

Facing these questions, our analysis consisted in an attempt to dialogically constructmeanings through 1) mapping the antinomies in each speech and identifying how thespeaker affectively relates to these antinomies - it is the analytical moment, when youreceive the voice of your interlocutor, framing it through your own position in thedialogue - and 2) selecting some antinomies and reconstructing the sense of the speechas a whole. But it is a new whole, since the speech and its interlocutors have becomedifferent through this dialogue that includes the interpretation of the researcher. Thus,considering this relationship between interlocutors, the Amerindian leaderships and we

Integr Psych Behav

are, in the dialogical sense, co-authors of the speeches analysed and co-authors of thisarticle (and who is reading this article becomes also a co-author, in another level).

It is a truism to say that the dialogical analysis implies participating in a dialogue.But that wasn’t a simple task for us. For a dialogue to happen, first of all it is necessaryto not consider the speech as an abstract thing which is your object of analysis, but toconsider that you are dialoguing with another speaker (that speaks not only with words,but with gestures, regards, smells), whose voices can never become an object of yours.Besides, when one considers one’s interlocutor as a person, one recognizes the alterityrelationship that constitutes their dialogue. This means recognizing that one can’t putoneself completely in the place of the other and that the places of the interlocutors areactually filled with embodied persons, who will always maintain their surprisingdimension of alterity.

Discussing about the interethnic encounter focusing in its alterity dimension is notonly fundamental to work with Amerindian People. It is also helpful to think how theencounter with the others that belong to what we call Bwe^ happens. And can help us todeal with the encounter with the alterity that inhabits ourselves.

Travelling through Interethnic Encounters

In an interethnic encounter, the interlocutors can embody different positions thatcommunicate and dwell with each other. Each position express different worlds andexperiences, positions through which multiple meanings, paths of knowledge andrhythms emerge. When these positions interpellate each other, these different meanings,voices and rhythms create hubbub (Guimarães 2016). With a new tuning, it is possibleto have a temporary common extra-verbal ground where the meanings can be sharedand understood. This sharing is always limited, concerning the infinite unknown thatconstitutes each position. Besides, the construction of shared meanings need to takeinto account the embodied and affective dimensions, and not only its cognitive-rationalelaboration. But how to achieve this sort of shared tuning?

When analysing the Amerindian leaders’ manifestations, and concretely meetingsome of them, we identified that there were certain dimensions of dialogue usuallyapproached in the communicative path constructed between the psychologist and theAmerindian People(s). For analysis purposes, we present this path divided into 4 layersof the dive the psychologist experiences when trying to encounter people with whomthey do not share the same cosmology. Nevertheless, the limits between thosedimensions/layers are porous; they are experienced simultaneously, but with differentintensities and different degrees of awareness of it by the participants. This enumerationof layers guide the presentation of the analysis of the speeches in this paper. We arguethat it indicates inherent steps to the development of the encounter between psychol-ogists and Amerindian Peoples.

1.

One of the dimensions of the dialogue is mostly about the interethnic relationshipand it is more like a role game – the psychologist, the Amerindian person, the leaders,the white people, and their positions in dialogue. The leaders sometimes interpellate the

Integr Psych Behav

psychologists as generic non-Amerindian People and sometimes specifically as psy-chologists. Besides, the leaders self-refer as Amerindian People (making generaliza-tions about being Amerindian) and at the same time emphasize the heterogeneity ofAmerindian Peoples and the different meanings and experiences of being Amerindianto white people and to each Amerindian People.

When interpelling psychologists, they emphasize that most psychologists don’tknow how to listen carefully, and that learning how to listen carefully is a long paththat should be travelled together. Many leaders talk about their fear that meeting apsychologist will be one more failed meeting. They talk about the violent postures ofpsychologists and white people in general, sharing how these failed encounters aredeeply inscribed in themselves and their communities. They emphasize the big risks ofthese attempted encounters. They question us how can we be careful; how can we dealwith these deep scars of the continuous failed encounters? Dora Pankararu (2010), tobegin her speech, says:

When I was talking to some of my relatives, in the beginning we thought that thisevent would be about a group of professionals evaluating us, studying us. Whatwe think and hope in this moment is that this new work group is really interestedin helping us find a path, a definition, as a solution is something more compli-cated to be achieved. (p.41)

The first step some leaders point seems to be to recognize that we don’t have a readyanswer, neither a solution. Here, psychologists are not interpelled as helpers neither assaviours. If one puts oneself in the place of solving questions, one presupposes that oneunderstood the question. Instead, the paths those questions open should be travelledtogether. For this, it is necessary that we psychologists recognize our positions in thedialogue. In other words, these questions are not asking to be solved but for ouravailability as psychologists to recognize that we are heirs of an atrocious history anda Eurocentric and racist Psychology. They also ask for an availability to be togetherwith Amerindian Peoples to compose paths and build a common space where theinterlocutors in the interethnic dialogue can trust and feel safe to express themselvesand create. Creating this common space of safety, thus, is not an aim, but a process.Trusting is not an a priori here, but is continuously co-constructed, and one shouldknow that, in this interethnic zone, one should always Btrust while not trusting^(Veríssimo Guarani Mbya, personal communication, 2015). And those paths aren’talways pleasant and instigating; they can be difficult, threatening, tense and anguishing.

When the positions and conflicts in the dialogue are recognized and experienced, theinterlocutors begin to build a shared affective ground (a ground full of holes, cracks,mirages, fertile soil and unknown fields). Through being together, the psychologist andtheir interlocutor begin to access dimensions that are beyond or beneath the interethnicrelationship itself and belong specifically to the person and the community.

2.

Another dimension is accessible if the interlocutors are more aware of each other’smirrors and positions. Thereby, they can better give sense to the leaders manifestationof anger, pain, fear and concern, denouncing the attitudes of white people towards

Integr Psych Behav

them, other living beings and the territory. The leaders talk about the historical issues ofthe interethnic contact, emphasizing their singular experience over it. Here the psy-chologist is interpelled as white people in general and the manifestations concern theviolence of the white people. The Amerindian leaders tell us: look what you have done,look how you, white people, are violent, look at the effects of your way of living andthinking. And they ask and call us to reflect with them why we do this and how we canchange it. They convoke us to look at our way of relating to the territory, to ourprejudice towards them and to our ways of relating to alterity. Many leaders talk aboutthe usual posture of white people to make alterity invisible through rude generalizations(what is not the Same is the same Other thing), by idealizations or by not taking theother as an interlocutor.

One could find an ambiguity in the speech of some leaders: at the same time theyoutline how they are different from white people and other Peoples, they share how ithurts to be considered as something different. If one listens carefully, one realizes thatthis apparent ambiguity actually emerges from the different meanings and experiencesof difference. Eunice Martins Guarani Mbya (2010) says:

I live in a community at the Jaraguá Peak, which is 15 minutes by car from SãoPaulo city’s centre. So, as we are living in the middle of the white community, wefeel a bit shy, a bit caged. When you walk in the street, people stare at you as ifyou were an animal, as something different. When they come in the aldeia to visitthe Amerindian People (…) they are all admired: ‘wow, this little child is runningall naked in the aldeia!’ It is like if it was an extraordinary thing, and I think it isvery bad for us to feel that we are something different. (p. 57)

As Eunice said, it hurts to feel that you are Bsomething different^ - it hurts to beobjectified in the position of an a priori different. Taking difference as a stable and fixedBthing^ usually leads to the posture of looking to the other from what it lacks the otherto be as myself or as what I desire the other to be like. Pedro Macena Guarani Mbya(3rd Forum), when talking about Bdifferentiated education^ and the equivocations thathappen in the dialogue with the government, gives us a glimpse of how Bdifference^could be faced in a way that it doesn’t imply an a priori and fixed position. Headdresses a process of continuously differentiating, which is the process where oneperson or community can be, explore and express oneself in their authenticity, as anactive interlocutor:

It is not possible to talk about equal rights as people usually do in meetings. Inthose meetings, I talk like this: ‘I am Guarani, I have my own culture, my people,my aldeia where I live, where I learn, where I live my day-to-day life in adifferent way’. And what is this ‘different way’ that I talk about? It is a differentway in the sense that I can feel well where I live, I can walk without a shirt orshoes; nobody is there to interfere in my day-to-day, because where I live is myterritory (…) (p. 10).

In this dimension of the dialogue, the leaders talk about their struggle and sufferingwith the impossibility of living well in the territory to which they belong. Some of theleaders tell us about how their community was expelled from their territory; others talk

Integr Psych Behav

about the difficulties faced and the suffering in living in a demarcated territory; otherstalk about their struggle to have their territory demarcated. Like Pedro, many leaderstalk about the difficulties and suffering they and their communities face because of thecommon posture of the white people (posture which is systematically adopted by theState) to demarcate, delimitate and confine the alterity – the territory is reduced to landand then shredded and demarcated; to be Amerindian is reduced to an identity (and tobe Amerindian becomes something measurable by stigmas) or is put together withother people in a big bowl tagged minorities.

Recognizing the common aspects of the violence that Amerindian People and othergroups experience can’t suppress the singularity of the way each person, communityand People live the failed encounters. The homogenization of this experience is a stepin the path to naturalize it and to promote indifference towards it. And the indifferenceand naturalization of racism and prejudice can hurt deeply. Antonísio Lulu Darã TupiGuarani (2010) says:

We have to hear most of the public opinion chastising Amerindian People inwords; we hear it a lot and sometimes we have to remain silent so as not to causeindifference. This hurts inside our people and our children suffer as well. (p. 70)

The leaders convoke the psychologists to think about the binomial which separatesthe Bspeaking^ subject from the Bmute^ object, which is directly related to thebinomials nature Vs. culture/human, mind/body. It is the fundament of the conceptionof the territory as a land, as a mute thing available to provide goods and resources, to beexplored, a land that can be divided and possessed by subjects, with no agency, no life.Meanwhile, the leaders emphasize that when they talk about Bland’ or Bterritory ,̂ theyrefer to something sacred, related to numerous dimensions of life. In this sense, theleaders emphasize that it is not possible to discuss the so-called Bcultural issues^without discussing the invasion of their territory.

In other words, it is fundamental to understand the historical, political and culturalcontexts from which these manifestations depart. But this understanding has to bepersonalized and the multiple meanings and experiences for each Amerindian Peopleand community have to be taken into account. As Roberto Veríssimo Guarani Mbya(personal communication, 2015) said, Bthe work with Amerindians is very differentfrom the work with Amerindian persons^. Thus, it is fundamental to be aware of theway each person singularizes the expressions their culture in relation to others and to uspsychologists and then support the singular dynamics of each person inside theircommunity.

3.

If the dive in the dialogue goes deeper, we face other questions: what can we dotogether, how can we create from this dialogue since we don’t share the same referents?Here, we face not only the difficulties inherent to the interethnic dialogue but we arealso urged to think about the difficulties of modern western people to deal with alterity.The availability to encounter alterity implies being open to transform and to deal withnon-rational dimensions, as we realize deeply that the world that we experience as solidand objective is not as solid as we thought. In this case, it also implies to assume the

Integr Psych Behav

responsibility for a process of ethnocide and genocide, what requires us to be aware ofour postures and its consequences.

The leaders tell us that if they are recognized as interlocutors and feel respected, thedialogue can access new dimensions and it is possible to build paths together. Theleaders point to the obstacles of those paths, emphasizing that there will be conflicts andequivocations about each other, since many of the referents are not shared. A bigobstacle is to overcome the usual posture of looking to the other from what it lacksthem to be like me. To build paths together is very different than to diagnose which arethe other’s problems and what I suppose (and maybe desire) that lacks them. Anotherbig obstacle is the way the State relates to Amerindian Peoples. How not to contributeto the institutionalized violence enhanced by the State?

The State and groups moved by economic interests try to undermine the possibilitiesof the Amerindian communities to live autonomously - transforming life in goods andthe Amerindian Peoples into poor people, citizens whose rights to access the funda-mental Bgoods^ to live are systematically violated. These actions are usually presentedas a good thing for Amerindian People. For instance, many leaders talk about theperversity of Universalist public policies, focusing in public health, which are elabo-rated for generic and abstract citizens, or for generic and abstract Amerindian People,without the participation of the communities. They denounce the violence of theimposition of programs which are not elaborated together with the communities andthat don’t consider the heterogeneity of Amerindian Peoples, outlining that health,education, social organization etc., aren’t universal and homogenous conceptions.

4.

If there is a more consistent shared affective ground and the interlocutors can bearbeing dislodged, it is possible to have a denser dialogue. One invites the other to dive indeeper dimensions of themselves, the community, their cosmology etc. The leaderspoint to this dimension of the encounter when, besides outlining the necessity torecognize that the referents are diverse, they give us glimpses of the world thesereferents belong to and the way they and their communities have been elaboratingthe encounters, the successful and the failed ones. The situations where the speecheswere delivered were very limited, in the sense that the shared affective ground betweenthe interlocutors was very fragile and that the leaders should Badapt^ to a way ofspeaking, behaving, sitting, etc. Alcides Gomes Guarani Mbya (4th Forum), forexample, emphasizes that the place where he is delivering his speech is a place wherehe can’t use his pipe, which is sacred. When it is possible to inhabit these spaces ofalterity in a way that the interlocutors feel safe to be unsafe, the tension inherent to theencounter can become a game where the participants can experiment, express them-selves and create. This is a very meaningful dimension of the encounter, where it ispossible to create, discover, re-discover and face the unknown not only with fear, butwith joy. In this sense, this dimension of the encounter is connected with the ethnic self-affirmation – where the persons or the community can feel safe to build and live whatthey are in the relationship and be recognized as such. In this invitation, the limits ofwhat can be shared are also delimitated and negotiated.

For instance, many leaders share what is Bto fight^ for them, saying how it prettymuch isn’t a choice, as they see themselves forced to face the state, the enterprisers, the

Integr Psych Behav

church… but also how it strengthens them, as it puts them as political agents and as itconnects past, present and future. When they talk about their fight, the leaders tell usstories in which they are not confined to the role of the victims of the colonizers (whichis still a perspective in which Europe is the epicentre) but stories where AmerindianPeople are Bwarriors^, they are political and historical agents. They also try to make ussensible to why they keep resisting, fighting so hard for their Bland^ or Bterritory .̂Some of the leaders say that they keep resisting because they fight for something verydifferent than what western people understand by Bland^, Bterritory^ or Benvironment^.They emphasize that, for them, the semantic field of Bland^ includes time, theirancestors, themselves, their children, many other beings and communities andBspirituality .̂

BSpirituality^ (as well as god, a word which was also used by many leaders) is aword that houses diverse worlds and experiences, of which we have no idea of thedimension. Saying from the rude understanding that this kind of listening and analysispermits, it seems that, in their speeches, Bspirituality^ is not grounded in the oppositiontranscendent/immanent as it generally is for westerns. When the leaders talk aboutBspirituality^ they are talking about their territory, their ancestors, their memory, aboutthe relationship between different generations, the intrinsic value of every being, thecarefulness one should have with the world, etc. Renato Mariano Guarani Mbya(2010), says:

I think nowadays there is no respect, no consideration of the value of each people(…). Because us Guarani, we always have thought about spirituality; because it isspirituality that will make us to continue being the Guarani people. We believe alot in this. (p. 43)

The spirituality appears as something very proper, intimate, and thus of high valuefor each person and each community: BOur spiritual part is very important for us. Wecarry it in our hearts and then when we get older as I am, we transmit to the others howimportant it is our spiritual part.^ (Juraci Cândido Lima 2010, p. 79). And, as it is sucha valuable, singular and at the same time immense experience, Cândido Lima (2010)emphasizes how it is a dimension that has to be considered very carefully in theinterethnic encounter:

Nowadays I don’t do my praying in public, because this is our sacred thing. (…)This sacred part is very important for us, I don’t even know how to explain it,because we have children inside our aldeia and we transmit to them what theancient ones have transmitted to us and that nowadays we know. I lived with lotsof elder people, so we know how culture is important, specially our spiritualityinside the aldeia. (p. 79)

Claudino Marcolino Tupi-Guarani Nhandéwa (2010) also talks about the importanceof being gentle and respecting the rhythms of the spiritual paths:

It is hard for us to talk about this spiritual part, because we have feelings, we dealwith our ancestors, who were very strong, and now we search slowly. One can’tsearch for everything at once, the emotions are too big and, in the end, we can’t

Integr Psych Behav

handle it, do you understand? So, we have to search slowly, first Amerindianculture in the braids, in the language and then Nhanderu, who is god (…). (p. 81)

Since talking in an auditorium for some unknown psychologists makes it verydifficult to express the meanings of Bspirituality ,̂ Bland^ and Benvironment^, theleaders give us some glimpses of how they live and create space, time, memory, howthey build knowledge, themselves and their communities. Facing the frighteningperspectives of the destruction of the world as we know it, how is it to think aboutthe future from a past time when there was everything? When talking about theprocesses of the construction of knowledge and construction of the person, AlcidesGomes Guarani Mbya (4th Forum) emphasizes the importance of not forgetting:

(...) I think our life is free, we are free. As the white people have their way ofliving, we have a way of living too. I think before we had everything: water, hunt,fish… Even though the little we had is now over, we still try to assure that ourchildren don’t forget their words/speeches, that they don’t forget their prayers,their origins (…) (p. 21)

(...) lots of people told me that we would never make it (to stay in their territory),but I have been living there for ten years. Lots of people want my neck there, but Ihide... We survive in this situation, because we are leaders and we fight for ourfamily, for my children, for my grandchildren. We want a place for them.Nevertheless, thank God I am happy, I didn’t forget about my words/speech, Ididn’t forget about my prayer, I didn’t forget about my pipe, which I don’t havetoday, but I always had it (...) (p. 22)

When the leaders talk about the different processes of person building andknowledge building, they not only outline the importance of considering thediversity of worlds in a psychological work, but also invite the psychologists totravel to other grounds/worlds and to realize other possibilities of experiencingthe world. They talk about the intrinsic value of every world, person and being,outlining how this is not considered by most of western ways of living. Whenthe leaders talk about the value of every person, some of them outline theimportance of the Bspirituality^ and the Bland^ in the construction of the personand the construction of knowledge.

Postures of Psychologists

Considering those dimensions of the encounter, what are the possible postures of thepsychologist and its effects? How to evaluate those postures if many of the presupposedvalues aren’t shared?

The leaders repeatedly convoke us psychologists to listen to them and theircommunities. How can we psychologists effectively listen, in depth? Besides,recognizing our interlocutor their alterity, respecting the legitimacy of theirexperiences and being aware of the mutual equivocation that is inevitable uponthe other, the leaders make it clear that the dialogue happens through being

Integr Psych Behav

together, when a shared affective situation can be constructed. With this, it ispossible to work together, co-creating new paths, narratives and meanings.Thus, the leaderships don’t ask for the psychologist to come up with solutions.Besides, they outline that some dimensions won’t be shared with the psychol-ogist. It is important for the psychologist to be implicated with whom theywork but also to know when to Bstep back^, to recognize that some of thework and stories concern just the community. As Mariano Guarani Mbya(2010) said, the work should be done jointly and in parallel.

Deeply listening implies being together because very important dimensions of theinterethnic dialogue happen in pre-reflexive dimensions – it is a dialogue that happensthrough the body which affects and is affected. These dimensions of dialogue aren’t inthe sphere of thought or shared values, as the latter are constituted by different ritualisticand mythological grounds from which each culture grounds its own intelligibilitypatterns of the world. Therefore, the encounter with alterity – the non-apprehensibledimension of the other – is a disquieting experience (Simão 2015) that affects us pre-reflexively, destabilizing our intelligibility patterns of the world. Thus, the encounterwith alterity creates zones where the meanings are ambiguous and one’s conceptions ofoneself are uncertain. These zones can be experienced with a great amount of sufferingand anguish, but if explored with due caution, they can be tremendously creative andtransformative.

In the interethnic encounter, we, psychologists, are required to listen not only towhat is being said in words, but to Blisten^ with all our body and senses. Being togetherimplies availability to live rhythms, smells, touches, temporalities and regards that weare not used to. It implies the availability to sustain discomfort, fear and a disquietingexperience. It implies the availability to be surprised and to be transformed, not only inthe level of thought, but to go through an embodied transformation. Also, the avail-ability to maybe suddenly find a surprising intimacy with some of those smells,rhythms and temporalities.

The ethic dimension that should ground and orient any psychological intervention,including the research, is the posture of implication with the person and the communitywith whom the psychologist works. It is through the bonds of trust and respect createdwith the person and the community that a therapeutic encounter can happen and that aresearch that effectively serves the person and the community interests can be done. Forinstance, one should not Bimplicate^ oneself in order to do a good research that leads toan appropriation of the community’s experience and knowledge for the researcher’sown interests, but one does a good research because one is implicated with whom oneis researching with, because this can be good for the community or the person.

Thus, the posture required recognizes the community and the person as political andtheoretical agents, as Bsubjects of their own image and history^ (Albert 2002, p. 8).Therefore, the Amerindian People and their speeches are not considered as data orobjects of the research (or as ill people to be cured, in a sort of the therapeutic work),but as agents. In this sense, we reinforce the importance of not considering the leaders’speeches as mere empirical data to which we apply a theory or an analysis. Instead, theAmerindian leaders` propositions problematize theoretical conceptions, pointing topaths of reflexion and transformation. Thus, there is an important dimension of thepsychologist’s work and research that is the interethnic mediation between multiplepolitical and theoretical agents that have different ontologies and epistemologies.

Integr Psych Behav

Besides, the Amerindian leaders outline the violent implications of the usual postureof assuming the position of the only knower and of considering that the westernscientific psychological knowledge is rational while other knowledge systems aremythic, symbolic or illusory. Beyond stressing the legitimacy and rationality of varioussystems of knowledge, it is important to recognize the participation of the myth and thenon-rational dimension in the construction of western knowledge and its cultural basis(Guimarães 2017).

For instance, not only other peoples’ knowledge is mythologically ground-ed, but the scientific knowledge also constructs its generality over the elab-oration of a mythical and narrative experience of the world. Since antiquity,western societies have been cultivating myths about the Others that partici-pated in the elaboration of supposed truths that helped to subjugate otherpeoples. One of those suppositions is that there could be only one trueknowledge – what presupposes the binomial logos Vs. myth and its conse-quent assumption that fantasy or imagination hides reality and is opposed toscientific knowledge.

With secularization, Amerindian knowledge was associated with mythicalknowledge - in opposition to rational or scientific knowledge - and not con-sidered valid. Establishing the limits between knowledge and lack of knowledgewas fundamental to the projects of assimilation of Amerindian Peoples in Brazil(Guimarães 2016) and has been playing an important role in the processes ofethnocide and genocide (religious proselitysm, State’s guardianship regime,integrationism etc.).3 Facing this, the Amerindian People resist, constructingstrategic speeches that can impact public opinion. Amerindian Peoples strategi-cally construct some of their political speeches Bplaying^ with the interethnicequivocation to impact public opinion, turning it into a Bproductiveequivocation^ (Albert 2002). The anthropologist Bruce Albert conducts animportant discussion about the Amerindian political speeches and how itsefficacy in the Binterethnic arena^ depends on their ability to deal with thewhite people’s double imaginary of Nature (the objectified and domesticablenature Vs the transcendental and irreducible, savage nature), and to translatetheir own alterity into the terms of the white people at the same time astranslating white people’s alterity into their own terms. Nevertheless, is impor-tant to not reduce the Amerindian elaborations to mere strategic operations.

3 Before the Federal Constitution of 1988, the Amerindian People were under a guardianship regime(tutela): legally, Amerindian peoples were considered as children, for whom an institution/citizenhas to respond for. This regime was grounded in the idea that Amerindian peoples and their waysof living would and should disappear – they should be assimilated to national society so thatAmerindian people would become citizens and (cheap) manpower and their territory would bereplaced by monocultures, mining, cities and major infrastructure projects. However, in 1988, theyconquered the right to respond for themselves under the courts and also the rights to havedifferentiated education and differentiated health systems. The differentiated education includesbilingual adequacy of the general contents of the public school and the possibility to teach specificcontents, between many other aspects. A differentiated health would supposedly be guaranteed byan indigenous health subsystem that integrates the national health system (SUS). However, the1988’s Constitution has never been effectively respected and the indigenous health and educationalsystem are still precarious and have been progressively dismantled. (Cf. Carneiro da Cunha 2012;Varga et al. 2013).

Integr Psych Behav

(Not a) Conclusion: Ethics in an Interethnic Arena

Some questions were shouting to us during all the research. They require a deep andcomplex discussion that won’t be made in this article, but we consider important tooutline them. How to evaluate the effects of the psychologist’s work? How to dialoguewhen the referents are not shared? Amerindian and Western cultures followed verydistinct ontological routes, each one with its own ways of dealing with others (Descola2008). The worlds to which each route has taken aren’t evident to each other; there isalways an equivocation that constitutes the understanding of the other. Thus, when onetakes into account the various ontological routes of different cultures, one has to try torecognize one’s own routes and how it guides one’s perceptions and evaluations whenmeeting the other.

Psychology is based upon a naturalistic ontological route (Descola 2008) whichpresupposes that nature is shared by every being while humanity is an exclusiveattribute of the persons that constitute Bus^. This naturalistic route is Eurocentric andhas been promoting a destructive attitude towards the other taken as not human or lesshuman. Therefore, to evaluate our own epistemology, it is necessary to take intoaccount an ethical dimension - an ethical posture implies recognizing and respectingthat the other always exceeds the Self (Coelho Junior 2008), and recognizing that theother can never be reduced to my knowledge system - being aware of the effectsproduced by the ways our culture deals with alterity.

These discussions don’t lead to a conclusion because they are part of paths forseeking encounters – more specifically, for seeking how psychologists and AmerindianPeople can work in ways that effectively deal with suffering and that open newpossibilities of fight against genocidal and ethnocidal processes, dialogue, experienceand psychological knowledge. What became evident during the paths already travelledis that this search is only fruitful if it is based on the Bbeing together^ and theavailability to face and dialogue with alterity. If not, we will keep doing more of thesame while thinking we are innovating. Seeking the encounter implies one’s availabil-ity to throw oneself into the unknown, assuming the risks and sustaining the discom-fort, but being careful not to lose all the ground one has, falling into a non-creativeanguish. How to balance the both necessary risk and carefulness in the interethnicencounter? Why does it seem that nowadays it is each time harder to be available toalterity?

It is not a conclusion because it is an invitation to become aware of the experienceand the dialogue that can happen if we open ourselves to live an affective experienceand multiple kinds of understandings. This academic experience only allows expressinga few facets of the travelled paths. In this level of communication, we sometimes haveto use many words and concepts that do not reach all dimensions of the focusedproblem, dimensions that are sometimes better reached by poetry, colours, smells,touches etc. Therefore, we always need to question the academic presentation of thephenomena and be available to confront it by living our own experience.

Becoming aware that our own words aren’t the wisest neither are universal allows usto realize that the questions concerning the interethnic encounter aren’t only (but also)specific questions of a particular group, but are questions that concern all beings thatinhabit this planet. The Amerindian leaders have been trying to make numeroustransductions to warn and prevent the white people from destroying something that

Integr Psych Behav

exists for much more time than since the European colonialist enterprise started. Theyhave practices, knowledge and propositions for the future that must be taken intoaccount. Besides, the Amerindian leaders make a reverse Psychology, guiding themeetings to issues concerning how to face the appalling future we will share and tryto get off this path of massive destruction of the world as we know it. It is important tooutline that our point here is not that the Amerindian People have the truth and thesolutions Westerns don’t have, but saying that it is by learning how to travel through theencounters with alterity that we can create, trying to experience out of our usualconceptual schemas.

We have so many different forms of knowledge, ways of living, experiences andworlds that can dialogue! If we don’t consider that various experiences and forms ofknowledge are legitimate, we will always travel through the same paths, making thesame questions – which won’t help us to deal with the future that is announcing itselfneither to repair historical debts with Amerindian Peoples. In the focused and othermanifestations, the Amerindian Peoples convoke us to pay attention to the world we aredialogically sharing and not sharing. They convoke us to work together - and inparallel.

Acknowledgements I am thankful to the Programa Unificado de Bolsas de Estudo da USP (PUB-USP) andthe Programa de Mobilidade Internacional Santander Universidades, that enabled this research conceding mescholarships and to the Niels Bohr Professorship Centre for Cultural Psychology for the partnership anddialogue.

References

ABRASME (2014, September). Carta de Manaus por uma saúde integral aos povos indígenas. Retrievedfrom http://www.congresso2014.abrasme.org.br/informativo/view?ID_INFORMATIVO=127&impressao

Albert, B. (1997). Territorialité, ethnopolitique et développement : à propos du mouvement indien enAmazonie brésilienne. Cahiers des Amériques Latines, 23, 177–210.

Albert, B. (2002). O ouro canibal e a queda do céu: uma crítica xamânica da economia política da natureza(Yanomami). ln B. Albert & A. R. Ramos (Eds.), Pacificando o branco: cosmologias do contato nonorte-amazônico (1st Ed, pp. 239–274). São Paulo: UNESP.

Bakhtin, M. (1997) Estética da criação verbal (2nd Ed, pp. 399–415). São Paulo: Martins Fontes.Bakhtin, M. M. & Voloshinov, V. N. (1976) Discourse in life and discourse in art: concerning sociological

poetics. In V. N. Voloshinov, Freudism. New York: Academic Press.Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.

London: The Penguin Press.Cândido Lima, J. (2010). Manifestações de lideranças indígenas. Conselho Regional De Psicologia Da 6a

Região (Ed), Psicologia e povos indígenas (pp. 78–79). São Paulo: CRPSP.Carneiro da Cunha, M. (2012). Índios no Brasil: história, direitos e cidadania (p. 2012). São Paulo, SP: Claro

Enigma.Coelho Junior, N. (2008). Da fenomenologia à ética como filosofia primeira: notas sobre a noção de alteridade

no pensamento de E. Lévinas. Estudos e Pesquisa em Psicologia, 2, 213–223.Cornejo, J. (2008). Intersubjectivity as co-phenomenology: From the holism of meaning to the being-in-the-

world-with-others. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, 42, 171–178.da Silva, P. R. (2014). A (in)visibilidade indígena no livro didático de história do Ensino Médio. Anais do XVI

Encontro Regional de História da Anpuh-Rio: Saberes e práticas científicas. Retrieved from http://www.encontro2014.rj.anpuh.org/resources/anais/28/1400212166_ARQUIVO_Phabio_Rocha.pdf

Darã Tupi Guarani, A. L. (2010) Manifestações de lideranças indígenas. Conselho Regional De Psicologia Da6a Região (Ed), Psicologia e povos indígenas (pp. 60–71). São Paulo: CRPSP.

Integr Psych Behav

Descola, P. (2008). Who owns culture. In La vie des idées Retrieved from http://www.booksandideas.net/Who-owns-nature.html.

Faleiros, A. (2014). Tradução poética e xamanismo transversal: correspondências entre Llansol e Baudelaire.Revista Brasileira de Literatura Comparada, 24, 16–32.

Gallois, D. T. (2000). Sociedades indígenas em novo perfil: alguns desafios. Travessia, Revista do Migrante,ano XIII, n. 36. Retrieved from https://www.institutoiepe.org.br/media/artigos/doc7.pdf

Gandra, E. Á., & Nobre, F. N. (2014). A temÁtica indígena no ensino de História do Brasil: uma anÁlise dacoleção didÁtica Projeto AraribÁ (2008-2013). Revista do Lhiste, 1, 40–57.

Guimarães, D. S. (2016). Amerindian paths: Guiding dialogues with psychology. Charlotte: Information AgePublishing.

Guimarães, D. S. (2017). Amerindian psychology: Cultural basis for general knowledge construction. In B.Wagoner, I. Bresco, & S. H. Awad (Eds.), The psychology of imagination: History, theory and newresearch horizons (pp. 221–238). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Jahoda, G. (1999). The images of savages: Ancient roots of modern prejudice in western culture. New York:Routledge.

Krenak, A. (2000). O eterno retorno do encontro. In B. Ricardo & F. Ricardo (Eds.), Povos Indígenas noBrasil 1996–2000 (pp. 45–48). São Paulo: Instituto Socioambiental.

Lindemeyer, M. R. (2013). O indígena no livro didático: memórias e identidades nas terras do Pará. In Anaisdo SILEL Retrieved from http://www.ileel.ufu.br/anaisdosilel/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/silel2013_695.pdf.

Marcolino Tupi-Guarani Nhandéwa, C. (2010) Manifestações de lideranças indígenas. Conselho Regional DePsicologia Da 6a Região (Ed), Psicologia e povos indígenas (pp. 80–81). São Paulo: CRPSP.

Mariano Guarani Mbya, R. S. (2010) Manifestações de lideranças indígenas. Conselho Regional DePsicologia Da 6a Região (Ed), Psicologia e povos indígenas (pp. 43–45). São Paulo: CRPSP.

Martins Guarani Mbya, E. A. (2010) Manifestações de lideranças indígenas. Conselho Regional De PsicologiaDa 6a Região (Ed), Psicologia e povos indígenas. (pp. 57–59) São Paulo: CRPSP.

Pankararu, D. (2010) Manifestações de lideranças indígenas. Conselho Regional De Psicologia Da 6a Região(Ed), Psicologia e povos indígenas (pp. 41–43). São Paulo: CRPSP.

Pantoja, M., Costa, E., & Almeida, M. W. (2011). Teoria e prática da etnicidade no Alto Juruá Acreano.Revista Raízes., 31(1), 118–137.

Ribeiro, D. (1996). Os Índios e a Civilização: a integração das populações indígenas no Brasil moderno. SãoPaulo: Companhia das Letras.

Simão, L. M. (2010). Ensaios Dialógicos: compartilhamento e diferença nas relações eu outro. São Paulo:HUCITEC.

Simão, L. M. (2015) The contemporary perspective of semiotic cultural constructivism: For an hermeneuticalreflexivity in psychology. In Marsico, Ruggieri & Salvatore (Eds.), Reflexivity and psychology (pp. 65–85). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Spink, P. K. (2003). Pesquisa de campo em psicologia social: uma perspectiva pós-construcionista. Psicologia& Sociedade, 15(2), 18–42. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-71822003000200003.

Todorov, T. (1982). A conquista da América: a questão do outro. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.Valsiner, J. (1997). Dialogical models of psychological processes: Capturing dynamics of development. Polish

Quarterly of Developmental Psychology, 3(2), 155–160.Varga, I., Batista, L., &Viana, R. (2013). Saúde da população indígena. InG.Venturi&V.Bokany (Eds.), Indígenas

no Brasil: demandas dos povos e percepções da opinião pública (pp. 143–175). São Paulo: Perseu Abramo.Viveiros de Castro, E. (2004). Perspectival anthropology and the method of controlled equivocation. Tipití:

Journal of the Society for the Anthropology of Lowland South America, 2, 3–22 Retrieved fromhttp://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/tipiti/vol2/iss1/1.

Viveiros de Castro, E. (2006) No Brasil, todo mundo é índio, exceto quem não é. In B. Ricardo & F. Ricardo(Eds.), Povos Indígenas no Brasil 2001–2005 (pp. 41–49). São Paulo: Instituto Socioambiental.

Rafaela Waddington Achatz is a Psychology undergraduate student at Universidade de São Paulo.

Danilo Silva Guimarães is professor at the Institute of Psychology (Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil). Hehas been working with theoretical and methodological issues concerning the cultural construction of senses,from a semiotic–cultural and constructivist perspective in psychology. His focus of investigation is the processof dialogical multiplication from the tensional boundaries between cultural alterities, psychology and Amer-indian peoples.

Integr Psych Behav